Theatre, the Universe and Everything

[Just Some Bloke]

In another thread elsewhere on these boards, Ken Coker provides a link to an article written by Ric Knowles (a Canadian academic) which states (amongst other things):

 

a “seminal†idea (usually in the form of a script) is floated by a producer and financier; developed by a director as guiding genius and owner; marketed by a publicity department; first implemented by set and costume designers (who have emerged from training and experience that privileges naturalistic, linear, logocentric and character-based psychological dramas); worked out and applied in rehearsals by actors; decorated and packaged by light (and sound) designers; built by a workforce of technicians; and delivered, upon payment, to an audience that is understood, and understands itself to be, consumers. Whatever the nature, content or conscious theme of a production, as product, and as the record of a particular ideologically coded process, its central, Western, masculinist and essentially capitalist message, without conscious disruption, interrogation and disarticulation, is by virtual necessity inscribed within the system itself.

 

Wow!

 

I am tempted to just say "discuss" or "write on one side of the paper only", but will add my 2p for starters.

 

1) I'm not sure that it's always the producer and financier's idea. I'd have thought it would be the director's idea or the writer's idea or the performer's idea quite often. These latter would try to find a producr to back the project that they came up with. The producer would then try to find a financier.

 

2) The director as "guiding genius"? They'll love that!!

 

3) "Marketed by a publicity department". Actually it would be marketed by a Marketing Department who might also look after the publicity.

 

4) The idea of set designers who are trained to favour naturalistic sets is just rubbish! Maybe 40 years ago they were but not any more.

 

5) What on earth does "logocentric" mean in this context?

 

6) The idea that lighting and sound designers "decorate and package" is, perhaps, not the full story.

 

7) The audience as consumer? Yes, I'd go with that. If I've paid my £20 I am most certainly a consumer and expect my money's worth.

 

8) So all theatre is "Western, masculinist and essentially capitalist" is it? A quick trawl through the SOLT website finds the following shows all currently advertised in the West End:

The Arab-Israeli Cookbook - Tricycle

Ballet Nacional de Cuba - Sadler's Wells

Kirov Ballet - ROH

Death of a Salesman - Lyric

Elmira's Kitchen - Garrick

The God of Hell - Donmar

Hair - Gate

Hedda Gabler - Duke of York's

The House of Bernarda Alba - National

Mary Stuart - Donmar

Persephone Projects - Globe

The President of An Empty Room - National

Rebecca - New Wimbledon

Talking to Terrorists - Royal Court

The UN Inspector - National

Woyzeck - Barbican

 

That doesn't look like a list of "Western, masculinist and essentially capitalist" productions to me.

 

This guy needs to get out more!

[alan v]

With regards point 8, I believe the author is saying that it doesn't matter what the final production (product) is actually about; rather, the way it is produced is western, masculine etc. So we may well have a groundbreaking play at the Royal Court about the perils of capitalism, but it is still a product that has gone through the stage of manufacture and marketing.

 

Or to put it another way...

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1859848982.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

 

Moderation: Link changed to amazon tag.

[Just Some Bloke]

With regards point 8, I believe the author is saying that it doesn't matter what the final production (product) is actually about; rather, the way it is produced is western, masculine etc.  So we may well have a groundbreaking play at the Royal Court about the perils of capitalism, but it is still a product that has gone through the stage of manufacture and marketing. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what is the alternative?

 

How can the UK produce a play about the perils of capitalism without it going through a capitalist process? And what about this masculine thing? At my venue the Manager is female, the Marketing department are all (read "both") female, the admin staff are all female, the box office staff are all female etc. etc. So if we put on a play by a woman, directed by a woman and performed by a woman (which, frankly, isn't that unusual) would it still be masculinist? And how would we stop that?

 

My point is that he may know a lot of long words and how to put them together to make sentences, but that's not any good if what he's saying is just wrong. Productions don't come about in the way he says they do. Producers don't think "let's do a play about xxx" then pass it over to a load of capitalist blokes to reinforce centuries of stereotype. In fact, certainly since half way through the 20th century, they have tried to do exactly the opposite very often. Indeed, railing against the status quo has been the raison d'etre of a whole load of theatre since theatre first began.

[Guest lightnix]

So we may well have a groundbreaking play at the Royal Court about the perils of capitalism, but it is still a product that has gone through the stage of manufacture and marketing. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, railing against the status quo has been the raison d'etre of a whole load of theatre since theatre first began.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if it gets lots of bums on seats then it's a success and will run forever and a day, if it doesn't then it isn't and it won't, no matter how you try to dress it up in fancy "PhD-speak".

 

Discuss

[gnomatron]

Indeed, railing against the status quo has been the raison d'etre of a whole load of theatre since theatre first began.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

yes, but he allows for that - he says;

 

its central, Western, masculinist and essentially capitalist message, without conscious disruption, interrogation and disarticulation...

 

So, he's not saying that all theatre is like that, just that it is by default.

[Just Some Bloke]

if it gets lots of bums on seats then it's a success and will run forever and a day, if it doesn't then it isn't and it won't, no matter how you try to dress it up in fancy "PhD-speak".

 

Discuss :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. However, people who don't want their theatre to be all those things Knowles mentions above have to deal with this very point: Capitalists want their theatre to make money and if it does it's a success. Anti-capitalists want their theatre to be a success and if it is it ends up making money. So how can the observer tell which is which? And does it matter?

 

... he's not saying that all theatre is like that, just that it is by default.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I take your point, but it leads to the logical conclusion that you can never put un-tainted theatre on at a big venue because in order to be sure of selling the tickets (enabling the venue to exist) then all those producers and marketing departments have to be involved. So what's the point of un-tainted theatre if no-one gets to see it?

 

If I want to go and see "perfect" theatre (a la Knowles) then someone has to produce it and someone else has to let me know it's happening. Suddenly it's no longer perfect. I don't see an answer.

[andy_s]

"logocentric" in this or any other context I take to mean "with words at the centre", or to use a theatrical equivalent, "text-based" as opposed to "physical" or "non-verbal" theatre (what used to be known as mime). The current use of "logo" to describe a symbol to replace a word or phrase (eg the Nike swoosh) is an extension of the basic meaning of the word.

 

apart from that , it seems clear to me that the originator of Ken's quote must be being paid by the page.